Rockefeller v. Scarbrough

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

June 22, 2018

DAVID ROCKEFELLER, Plaintiff,v.JAMES SCARBROUGH, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JEROME
B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

1. On
May 22, 2018, Plaintiff David Rockefeller filed this
Complaint against James Scarbrough, accompanied by an
application to proceed in forma
pauperis.[1] The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Based upon the financial
information in Mr. Rockefeller's application to proceed
without prepaying fees or costs, Mr. Rockefeller qualifies to
proceed without prepayment of fees, and his application to do
so will be GRANTED.

2. When
a Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court is required to pre-screen this
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and to
dismiss the case if the court determines that the action is
frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). The Court is also required to dismiss any
complaint if it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is
lacking, see Rule 12(h)(3) [“if the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.”]

3. For
purposes of this preliminary review, the Court will assume
that all of the allegations in Mr. Rockefeller's
Complaint are true. The Court makes no findings, however, as
to the truthfulness of these allegations. Mr. Rockefeller
alleges that this is a contract case in which he receives
services from Comcast, with which he has a billing dispute.
He alleges that an individual named James Scarbrough, on
behalf of Comcast, informed him that he had an unpaid bill in
the amount of $154.08. Mr. Rockefeller believes that his
current balance is only $89.00. [Compl. at Part III.C] Mr.
Scarbrough is described as a Comcast billing representative.
[Id.] Mr. Rockefeller alleges that he is entitled to
maintain his service, and to obtain restoration of all
credits that Comcast has promised to him. He alleges that Mr.
Scarbrough threatened to remove his service and that Mr.
Rockefeller got sick as a result.

4. Mr.
Rockefeller asserts that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as Mr.
Rockefeller is a citizen of New Jersey, and he alleges that
Mr. Scarbrough resides in Delaware and works Comcast in
Pennsylvania.

5. It
is not sufficient that plaintiff and defendant be citizens of
different states. It is also a requirement of diversity
jurisdiction that at least $75, 000.00 be in dispute. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). In this contract case, Mr. Rockefeller
alleges a monetary dispute which is the difference between
$154.08 and $89.00, which is $64.08. The Complaint also
alleges that Mr. Rockefeller seeks to be paid “for
hours lost due to not doing the job I have working out of my
home.” [Compl., Part V] For injuries, the Complaint
says Mr. Rockefeller is “Taking medicine.”
[Compl., Part IV] Regarding Mr. Rockefeller's job from
his home for which he has lost some hours of work due to
Comcast's failure to install his equipment properly, the
Complaint provides no information about what sort of work
this was or what his hourly income from his self-employment
is. Mr. Rockefeller's application to proceed in forma
pauperis, however, lists no income other than
“retirement” which provides a monthly income, and
does not claim any employment for the past two years in Part
2 of the Application. This would mean that, during the two
years prior to filing the application in May of 2018, Mr.
Rockefeller has had no self-employment income. The events
giving rise to this lawsuit, however, did not occur until the
phone call with Mr. Scarbrough on May 15, 2018. [Compl.,
Parts III. A and B.]

6.
Where a party alleges $75, 000 in dispute but provides no
basis for such a recovery in the Complaint and accompanying
papers, a court may dismiss for lack of meeting the
“amount-in-controversy” threshold. The court in
such a situation must determine, “from the face of the
pleadings, [if] it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that
the plaintiff cannot recover the ‘minimum
jurisdictional' amount claimed, or if, from the proofs,
the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the plaintiff
never was entitled to recover that amount....” St.
Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283,
289 (1938). To determine the amount-in-controversy, and
whether it is “legally certain” that the
plaintiff could not recover at least $75, 000, a value must
be placed on the relief sought. See Samuel-Bassett v. Kia
Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 398-400 (3d Cir. 2004).
In the present case, if the plaintiff is successful, the
maximum amount of his recovery, based upon the allegations in
the Complaint, would be equivalent to the monthly value of
his Comcast services (assuming that those services are cut
off as threatened which, according to the Complaint, has
apparently not occurred) of $89 per month. The Court is aware
of no theory of New Jersey law under which a plaintiff can
receive compensation for becoming “upset” and
taking medicine due to a breach of contract. Generally, in a
breach of contract action under New Jersey law, the
plaintiff's recovery is limited to the value of the
contractual services and not additional compensation for
emotional harm and aggravation caused by the breach of the
contract.

7. It
appears to a legal certainty, based upon the above facts,
assuming them to be true, that the value of plaintiff's
recovery in this contract case could never meet the $75, 000
threshold required for federal court jurisdiction. Nothing
prevents plaintiff from filing this case in a court of
competent jurisdiction, such as the Small Claims Court of the
Superior Court of New Jersey, but this federal court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain the case.

8.
Accordingly, the accompanying Order will be entered granting
leave to file in forma pauperis, directing the Clerk
to file the Complaint upon the docket, and dismissing the
Complaint without prejudice to Mr. Rockefeller's right to
refile a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction.

9.
Because Mr. Rockefeller is proceeding pro se, he
will be given one opportunity, if he chooses to do so, to
seek to amend the Complaint to cure these jurisdictional
deficiencies. If Mr. Rockefeller, despite this dismissal,
seeks to maintain this case in federal court, he may file a
motion to amend the Complaint, attaching a proposed Amended
Complaint, and explaining how the amendment would cure the
jurisdictional deficiency regarding the $75, 000
amount-in-controversy. Any such motion to amend the Complaint
must be filed within 30 days.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.